It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Large Debris Field, No Bodies, No Large Plane Parts. Flight 93? Think again

page: 19
26
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by samael93

Originally posted by jfj123

No you're not caught up yet.
Let me help.
You see, as far as we are all aware of, there has been no other crash exactly or even reasonably close to flight 93.
The OP has found the most SIMILAR crash we've seen so far. Notice everyone has said something along the lines of, "most similar".

Now in addition, many of the "truthers" say that a plane would not make that type of impact and debris field yet the OP has found one that does. hmmm. So the claim that the truthers make, is false. Geeeeee, wonder what else they're wrong about?


Have you read the entire thread? first of all, this plane crash left very large plane parts sitting around. So when truthers say a plane will not leave an impact like the 93 one, they are still right, i do not see any big plane parts there. In fact I see no plane parts there at all. The closest I have seen are random individual pics of plane parts taken away from the crash site later that were never id'd by serial number to prove they came from flight 93. So what is your point exactly? Even throatyogurt admitted that this was not the same because of say the HUGE TAIL SECTION that there is a nice pic of. Where is 93's huge tail section? This crash site proves nothing except that when a plane crashes, it DOES leave plane parts around. So I guess this only helps the flight 93 case for truthers.


Yes I read the entire thread. Unfortunately it looks as if you've responded to my post without actually reading it.

Let me repost it for you

You see, as far as we are all aware of, there has been no other crash exactly or even reasonably close to flight 93.
The OP has found the most SIMILAR crash we've seen so far. Notice everyone has said something along the lines of, "most similar".


Notice where I NEVER said it was exactly the same thing but merely the closest example anyone could find?

Hopefully this helps...this time.




posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


NO, not EVERYONE said that. And yes, I read that part, but it completely argues with the rest of your point so I had to go one way or the other. Either it is similar, and not really even, and proves nothing other than plane crashes DO leave large chunks of debris

or

it is not all that similar and is a completely pointless thread.

which is it?



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by samael93
reply to post by jfj123
 


NO, not EVERYONE said that. And yes, I read that part, but it completely argues with the rest of your point so I had to go one way or the other. Either it is similar, and not really even, and proves nothing other than plane crashes DO leave large chunks of debris

or

it is not all that similar and is a completely pointless thread.

which is it?



For the 3rd time, as stated, it's the most similar crash anyone has found to date that we're aware of.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Either it is similar, and not really even, and proves nothing other than plane crashes DO leave large chunks of debris

or

it is not all that similar and is a completely pointless thread.

which is it?



For the 3rd time, as stated, it's the most similar crash anyone has found to date that we're aware of.


So, that would the second choice then. Not the same = proves NOTHING about anything.

I have a hole in the backyard where i dropped something off the deck. That looks nothing like the flight 93 crash scene either, should I post an entire thread about how that is the most similar deck dropping accident that i could find?

This thread is a distraction from the issues and does nothing but HIGHLIGHT the fact that there should have been plane debris all ove the flight 93 crahs scene but THERE WAS NOT!

So thank you for answering me.

This crash is the most similar you could find, which is not the same and proves nothing nad is pointless.

Case closed.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by samael93

Originally posted by jfj123
Either it is similar, and not really even, and proves nothing other than plane crashes DO leave large chunks of debris

or

it is not all that similar and is a completely pointless thread.

which is it?



For the 3rd time, as stated, it's the most similar crash anyone has found to date that we're aware of.



So, that would the second choice then. Not the same = proves NOTHING about anything.

In pre-school, we learned that you can compare similar things to find similarities between them. For example, oranges and apples are not the same but they are both fruits and both round.


I have a hole in the backyard where i dropped something off the deck. That looks nothing like the flight 93 crash scene either, should I post an entire thread about how that is the most similar deck dropping accident that i could find?

If that thing was a plane then you could compare and contrast the two things. Did you drop a plane off your deck?

Also, do you understand the difference between "similar" and "completely different" ?


This thread is a distraction from the issues and does nothing but HIGHLIGHT the fact that there should have been plane debris all ove the flight 93 crahs scene but THERE WAS NOT!

Explain in detail using scientific principles, why there should be more plane debris then was found at the flight 93 crash site.


[edit on 31-8-2008 by jfj123]

[edit on 31-8-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Explain in scientific detail how this plane crash site does anything to help prove that a plane crashed in that hole in PA.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Is it the same plane?
Same fuel load?
Same impact speed?
Same impact angle?
Crash scene look the same?
Wreckage the same?
Apples a good source of citric acid?

no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.

You are very good, apples and oranges are both fruit. Can you get an orange from an appleseed?
no.
Can you get proof a plane crashed in a hole with no wreckage by showing another plane crash that looks quite differenct ie WRECKAGE!?
no.

I will say one last time, you are talking in circles, this is pointless. This entire thread is pointless. It proves nothing. So the thing in my backyard has to be a plane? Why? You already said apples and oranges are both fruit, but the apple does not HAVE to be an orange does it? So where do the similarites and differences get to stop?
OK, so the thing on my deck must be a plane.
It does NOT however, have to leave the same impact crater or debris field?
Do you see the flaw in that argument? In this entire thread?

[edit on 31/8/08 by samael93]



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by samael93
Is it the same plane?
Same fuel load?
Same impact speed?
Same impact angle?
Crash scene look the same?
Wreckage the same?
Apples a good source of citric acid?

no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.


So in your world nothing can be compared unless it's the exact same thing?


Can you get proof a plane crashed in a hole with no wreckage by showing another plane crash that looks quite differenct ie WRECKAGE!?

There were small pieces of wreckage at the flight 93 crash site not to mention body parts. So those 2 things do strongly indicate plane crash.

You obviously simply don't get how to compare things so I really don't think I can help you understand. Good luck in life.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

So in your world nothing can be compared unless it's the exact same thing?


Can you get proof a plane crashed in a hole with no wreckage by showing another plane crash that looks quite differenct ie WRECKAGE!?

There were small pieces of wreckage at the flight 93 crash site not to mention body parts. So those 2 things do strongly indicate plane crash.

You obviously simply don't get how to compare things so I really don't think I can help you understand. Good luck in life.


No, in my world, they have to share enough similarities in order for a comparison to mean anything. Where are these plane parts? They were id'd as parts from flight 93 with serial numbers right?

Where are the body parts? I would love to see them, especially after two years worth of the coronor complaining how he has still not see any body parts.

You cannot compare apples and oranges, that is what that analogy means. Show me these plane parts and body parts from 93 that make these sooooo similar.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 10:20 PM
link   


Where are the body parts? I would love to see them, especially after two years worth of the coronor complaining how he has still not see any body parts.


Now thats funny, seeing how the coroner, Wallace Miller, had to say when interviewed....




"It's all bull#," says Miller. "I'm not saying I was misquoted, but the quote was taken out of context. There were pieces of people. Trust me. I cleaned it up. The plane hit the ground doing 575 miles per hour. The rest of the remains were vaporized on impact. But we did ID everyone onboard


www.freetimes.com...



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999



Where are the body parts? I would love to see them, especially after two years worth of the coronor complaining how he has still not see any body parts.


Now thats funny, seeing how the coroner, Wallace Miller, had to say when interviewed....




"It's all bull#," says Miller. "I'm not saying I was misquoted, but the quote was taken out of context. There were pieces of people. Trust me. I cleaned it up. The plane hit the ground doing 575 miles per hour. The rest of the remains were vaporized on impact. But we did ID everyone onboard


www.freetimes.com...


Yeah, that is hillarious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Where are those body parts? I believe I asked for evidence of body parts. Even if the above quote were a true representation of what he said about that day, who cares, it is still one man's word either way right? So, here, I am giving you your easy out to discredit him before you read this.

Sunday, 25 February 2007
The Many Misquotes of Wallace Miller

Wallace Miller is the coroner of Somerset County, Pennsylvania. He was among the first people to arrive at the alleged Flight 93 crash site on the morning of 9/11.

He later recounted to the Washington Post what he'd seen when he first got there: "I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no bodies there. It became like a giant funeral service." (Peter Perl, "Hallowed Ground," Washington Post, 5/12/2002)

Since there were 44 people on board Flight 93, a crash site with "no bodies" makes no sense. Where were the victims? Something appears to have been seriously wrong.

Yet Miller now seems to dispute his earlier claim. In the recent BBC documentary 9/11: The Conspiracy Files, he explained: "I said that I stopped being a coroner after about 20 minutes because it was perfectly clear what the cause and manner of death was gonna be. It was a plane crash but yet it was a homicide because the terrorists hijacked the plane and killed the people, and the terrorists committed suicide. So from that point, yes it was a misquote, because the point that I was trying to make was, after that it more or less became a large funeral service." The BBC documentary's producer Guy Smith endorsed this claim, telling Loose Change creator Dylan Avery that Miller meant his earlier statement only as "a simile. ... It looked as if that had happened. ... But he didn't mean that literally." (9/11: The Conspiracy Files, BBC 2, 2/18/2007)

Was the Washington Post mistaken? Did they "misquote" Wallace Miller? Other reports suggest differently. In the 12 months following 9/11, Miller in fact described the surprising lack of human remains at the Flight 93 crash site, repeatedly and unequivocally:


He told author David McCall: "I got to the actual crash site and could not believe what I saw. ... Usually you see much debris, wreckage, and much noise and commotion. This crash was different. There was no wreckage, no bodies, and no noise. ... It appeared as though there were no passengers or crew on this plane." (David McCall, From Tragedy to Triumph, 2002, pp. 86-87)


He told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "It was as if the plane had stopped and let the passengers off before it crashed." (Tom Gibb, "Newsmaker: Coroner's quiet unflappability helps him take charge of Somerset tragedy," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/15/2001)


He told CNN: "It was a really a very unusual site. You almost would've thought the passengers had been dropped off somewhere. ... Even by the standard model of an airplane crash, there was very little, even by those standards." (CNN, 3/11/2002)



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


and this

Author Jere Longman wrote: "Wallace Miller, the Somerset County coroner, arrived and walked around the [crash] site with [assistant volunteer fire chief Rick] King. ... They walked around for an hour and found almost no human remains. 'If you didn't know, you would have thought no one was on the plane,' Miller said. 'You would have thought they dropped them off somewhere.'" (Jere Longman, Among the Heroes, 2002, p. 217)


Recalling the crash scene, Miller told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: "This is the most eerie thing. I have not, to this day, seen a single drop of blood. Not a drop." (Robb Frederick, "The day that changed America," Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 9/11/2002)


Australian newspaper The Age reported: "Miller was familiar with scenes of sudden and violent death, although none quite like this. Walking in his gumboots, the only recognisable body part he saw was a piece of spinal cord, with five vertebrae attached. 'I've seen a lot of highway fatalities where there's fragmentation,' Miller said. 'The interesting thing about this particular case is that I haven't, to this day, 11 months later, seen any single drop of blood. Not a drop. The only thing I can deduce is that the crash was over in half a second. There was a fireball 15-20 metres high, so all of that material just got vaporised.'" ("On Hallowed Ground," The Age, 9/9/2002)

It would be ridiculous to claim that these accounts were all 'misquotes.' Furthermore, several other witnesses also made the same observation, and later said they saw virtually no human remains at the Flight 93 crash site:


According to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, when former firefighter Dave Fox arrived at the scene, "He saw a wiring harness, and a piston. None of the other pieces was bigger than a TV remote. He saw three chunks of torn human tissue. He swallowed hard. 'You knew there were people there, but you couldn't see them,' he says." (Robb Frederick, "The day that changed America," Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 9/11/2002)


Local FBI agent Wells Morrison told author Glenn Kashurba what he saw when he arrived at the crash site: "We arrived in the immediate area and walked up to the crater and the burning woods. My first thought was, 'Where is the plane?' Because most of what I saw was this honeycomb looking stuff, which I believe is insulation or something like that. I was not seeing anything that was distinguishable either as human remains or aircraft debris." (Glenn Kashurba, Courage After the Crash, 2002, p. 110)


After hearing a plane was down nearby, Jeff Phillips, who worked at Stoystown Auto Wreckers, "left work to locate the crash site," along with a colleague. "But when we arrived," he says, "Almost nothing was recognizable. The only thing we saw that was even remotely human was half a shoe that was probably ten feet from the impact area." (David McCall, From Tragedy to Triumph, 2002, pp. 29-30)


Jon Meyer, a reporter with WJAC-TV, says: "We were so early that they hadn't had a chance to set up a barrier for the press. ... I was able to get right up to the edge of the crater. ... All I saw was a crater filled with small, charred plane parts. ... There were no suitcases, no recognizable plane parts, no body parts."(Newseum, Running Toward Danger, 2002, p. 148)


Faye Hahn, an EMT, responded to the first reports of the crash. She says: "Several trees were burned badly and there were papers everywhere. We searched. ... I was told that there were 224 passengers, but later found out that there were actually forty. I was stunned. There was nothing there." (David McCall, From Tragedy to Triumph, 2002, pp. 31-32)



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999



Where are the body parts? I would love to see them, especially after two years worth of the coronor complaining how he has still not see any body parts.


Now thats funny, seeing how the coroner, Wallace Miller, had to say when interviewed....




"It's all bull#," says Miller. "I'm not saying I was misquoted, but the quote was taken out of context. There were pieces of people. Trust me. I cleaned it up. The plane hit the ground doing 575 miles per hour. The rest of the remains were vaporized on impact. But we did ID everyone onboard


www.freetimes.com...


Now how about you use your imagination and take every one of those quotes and see if you can come up with the crazy context that would make them mean what you want them to. How about the one about still never having seen one drop of blood, NOT ONE. Stuff like that, tell me how it can be manipulated. He did say he was NOT misquoted, just taken out of context. I just gave you plenty of examples to play with.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 11:13 PM
link   
I have been following the 9/11 threads on here for a long time before I decided to join. You are all having the same argument over and over and over here. What is the point of this thread?

The crash scene is not the same.
The OP did not claim it was the same, it is similar.
But there are no body parts or plane parts at 93, and there are here.
Yes there were, people said there were later and then came up with some pics even though they never proved they were the right plane parts and no body part pics but still yes they were.
Oh, so they are the same then?
YES!
Ok, go back to the beginning now.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by samael93

Originally posted by jfj123

So in your world nothing can be compared unless it's the exact same thing?


Can you get proof a plane crashed in a hole with no wreckage by showing another plane crash that looks quite differenct ie WRECKAGE!?

There were small pieces of wreckage at the flight 93 crash site not to mention body parts. So those 2 things do strongly indicate plane crash.

You obviously simply don't get how to compare things so I really don't think I can help you understand. Good luck in life.


No, in my world, they have to share enough similarities in order for a comparison to mean anything. Where are these plane parts? They were id'd as parts from flight 93 with serial numbers right?

As far as I know, there are not serial numbers on every inch of a plane. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.


Where are the body parts?

At the crash site. At least according to witnesses whom I'm sure you will say are part of the "conspiracy".



I would love to see them, especially after two years worth of the coronor complaining how he has still not see any body parts.

The onsite coroner has stated that he DID see body parts at the crash site.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by samael93
 


Here's the problem I see.
You want to actually see body parts.
If you were to actually see body parts, you'll say they were planted.
Then you'll want DNA testing.
If you were to actually get the body parts retested, you won't believe the tests because they were tampered with.

and on, and on, and on....it never ends

Even stating that you want to see the body parts is silly as it's not going to happen. I assume the parts were cremated at some point and even if they were kept frozen, we both no that a normal citizen such as yourself would never be allowed to see them because :
1. It wouldn't accomplish anything
2. It would be disrespectful to those who died and to their families.
3. They are evidence that you might taint.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Similarities folks. That's what were are doing here. This is not a thread to "prove flight 93 crashed in Shanksville". This is to show how similar the flights were. The crash and debris fields.

Flight 93 DID in fact crash in Shanksville, that has been proven several times on other threads.

Lets looks at facts here:



Fatalities:Flight 1771 43

Flight 93 44

Type of crash:Flight 1771 Suicide

Flight 93 Suicide

Debris fields:Flight 1771 6-8 miles

Flight 93 8 miles

Debris: Flight 1771 Suicide note found(paper)

Flight 93 Hijacker passport found

From the NTSB Report:

Witnesses:Flight 1771 "Plane was intact"

Flight 93 "Plane was intact"

Witnesses:Flight 1771 Plane was "nose down"

Flight 93 Plane was "nose down"

From the CVR Report:

Flight 1771 Scuffle in the cockpit

Flight 93 Scuffle in the cockpit

Photos of body parts
made public: Flight 1771 0

Flight 93 0

Release reports of
matching serial numbers:Flight 1771 0

Flight 93 0

Crater with debris? Flight 1771 yes

Flight 93 yes

Debris found in trees? Flight 1771 yes

Flight 93 yes


Witnesses of Debris:

Flight 1771:

Bill Wammock -“nothing that resembled an airliner... we went on for hours, before we heard the news reports of a missing airliner, believing that we were dealing with a small airplane full of newspapers that had crashed. We saw no pieces of the aircraft that were larger than, maybe, a human hand. It did not look like a passenger aircraft.”

Flight 93:
Ernie Stull- Mayor of Shanksville-"They just found the two turbines because, of course, they're heavier and more massive than everything else. But there was almost nothing left of the actual airplane. You can still find plate-sized parts out there. And Neville from the farm over there found an aluminum part from the airplane's outside shell behind his barn that must've been about 8 by 10 or even 8 by 12 feet."


Were their differences? Sure!

Flight 1771 was a BAe 146, Flight 93 was a larger 757.

Maximum take off weight for the BAe 146 is 93,035 lb
Maximum take off weight for the 757 is 255,000 lbs.

The speeds of the crash were different as well.

If anyone is interested in determining the kinetic energy difference between both flights, I think that would be pretty cool.

Once again, this thread was to show the similarities of the two high speed crashes.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


Based on what you've posted, I believe you've accomplished what you wanted. I still say GOOD JOB.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


thanks JFJ...

I am hoping to find someone to show the differences in the kinetic energy.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


The major component of kinetic energy is velocity (m.v^2)/2 so in this case the smaller plane at 93035lb only needs to impact about 65% faster than the 255000lb 757 to have the exact same energy to be dissipated.

EG. if the 757 impacted at 450mph, the smaller plane would need to impact at 745mph to do the same amount of damage.

There's another crash that produced the first responder comments like 'nothing to show a large plane had crashed' and similar (small pieces etc) - the Turkish airlines DC10 that crashed in France after the cargo door blew out and all control cables were severed by the collapsing floor. I haven't been able to find any pics of that scene as yet but it sounds very similar.




top topics



 
26
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join